Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130209
STATION
KQEH (PBS) 4
MSNBC 4
MSNBCW 4
WETA 2
WHUT (Howard University Television) 2
KCSM (PBS) 1
KQED (PBS) 1
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 19
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)
. senator feinstein was obviously working behind the scenes. and so finally last night around 6:30, 7:00 last night, the white house relented and the president called wyden. i know you guys are going to talk to wyden later. but this is a very big deal because now the drone policy is going to be central to this confirmation hearing today. >> you know, yesterday pete wehner wrote this. and he's quoting barack obama from may 29th, 2009, the famous speech at the national archives. where he says, let me be clear. we are at war with al qaeda, but we need to update our institutions and do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process. in checks and balances and accountability for reasons i will explain, the decisions were made over the last eight years during the bush years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable. a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions and that failed to use our values as a compass. those words, steve, whether you agree with this drone program or no
is more precise and careful than most people imagine. i notice that chairman feinstein in the course of her rashgsz side-stepping classified information made that point that from what the committee sees, the targeting is very precise. >> do you think that the president should have the sole phenyl authority over this. we're told by public reports that there is actually a kill list and that the president goes through names and the intelligence himself. >> should there be some other check and ballot ability of a president, any president, to make life and death decisions over americans who are connected to terrorist groups or are suspected of being connected to terrorist groups. >> i think that's a tough question. i think it does bare examination. he clearly is responsible and accountab accountable. since lyndon johnson did get involved. since then presidents typically have not gotten into the targeting loop that is choosing specific targets. >> that is a departure from past practice, and i think the idea of looking at a court or some other thing inserted into the decision process has so
. there was no oversight of it. so, i don't know. i do know, though, that senator feinstein has finally gotten, she's the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, has finally gotten a report out of the committee, through the republicans and senate vote, allegedly it's 6,000 pages long. and it covers all things torture. and she's very upset about the film. and she believes that whatever you want to say about torture and its human rights violations, that it did not produce the intelligence that the film suggests that it did. >> and she says the use of these harsh interrogation techniques was quote "far more systematic and widespread than we thought." but how do we ever know if that report isn't published? >> this is one of the problems with oversight of national security matters. some of these things have to remain secret. you can debate over which ones should and which ones shouldn't. but someone has to decide that this information can be released without harming national security. and i don't see that happening any time in the near future. it is possible that some of the findings could get ou
feinstein. >> if you could please expedite the removal. >> more important than the children of pakistan and yemen? are they more important? do your job! >> the hearing serve as a public discussion of the most controversial counterterrorism policies that began under president george w. bush and, in part, have continued and expanded under president obama. brennan's defense of the secrecy surrounding the administration's most questionable program, targeted assassinations using drone aircraft, was as opaque as the program itself. >> what we need to do is optimize transparency on these issues, but at the same time optimize secrecy and the protection of our national security. i don't think that it's one or the other. it's trying to optimize both of them. >> some senators, including ron widen and angus king, pushed brennan to explain the legal at and justification for assassinating american citizens abroad. >> every american has the right to know when their government believes it's allowed to kill them. >> i understand you can't have co-commanders in chief, but having the executive being the p
and was sort of smacked down by dianne feinstein. but now it's out there so much that the secrecy element is gone, and i think there has to be a real discussion both about the constitutionality particularly when it comes to american citizens but also the wider ramifications of whether this is actually serving our national security cause. because whilst you're taking out some al qaeda leaders, you're causing huge amounts of resentments in some of these areas and possibly fueling the next generation of militants in places like yemen and the pakistani borders, if we extend it into somalia or mali, there are a whole lot of people who are going to feel extremely angry about missiles raining down out of the sky and taking down people not always associated with terrorism. there's a story in "the new york times" this morning of an imam who spoke out against al qaeda. operatives came to speak to him. as they were speaking under a tree to threaten him, missiles came down and took them out. what does that do in that community in terms of a sense of what america is doing, anger towards america and th
Search Results 0 to 18 of about 19 (some duplicates have been removed)